Madras High Court
S.Vallamuthu vs The Joint Commissioner on 12 August, 2022
W.P(MD).No.10332 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 12.08.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
W.P(MD).No.10332 of 2017
and
W.M.P(MD)No.7904 of 2017
S.Vallamuthu ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
Madurai.
2.The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
Madurai.
3.The Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Mahadeva Swamy Temple,
Raja Mill Road,
Madurai. ...Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for records relating to
the impugned order, dated 12.05.2017 passed by the first respondent in
Miscellaneous Petition No.46 of 2017 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.R.Jeyapalam
For R1& R2 : Mr.M.Lingadurai
Special Government Pleader
For R3 : Mr.S.Manohar
Standing Counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
W.P(MD).No.10332 of 2017
ORDER
The petitioner is a sub-tenant under one Ramakrishnan, who is a tenant
under the third respondent. The said Ramakrishnan entered into an agreement
with the petitioner on 15.04.2009, by which petitioner was given possession
of the property in lieu of interest free deposit of Rs.2,00,000/-. The third
respondent sent a notice on 25.11.2012 to Ramakrishnan, who is no more by
then. The petitioner met the third respondent several times with request to
make him direct lessee on payment of market rent. The first respondent issued
a notice, dated 26.12.2012 to the deceased Ramakrishnan under Section 78
(2) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act,
1959. Thereafter, the petitioner filed O.S.No.1186 of 2012 before the
Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai and obtained decree of permanent
injunction, dated 05.01.2015 restraining the third respondent from interfering
with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property
except under due process of law. The Joint Commissioner by order in M.P.No.
46 of 2017, dated 12.05.2017 under Section 78 of the Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments Act directed the petitioner to hand over the
possession of the property to the third respondent temple.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.10332 of 2017
2. The petitioner earlier sent representation seeking to make him as
direct tenant under the third respondent, which was not considered. The
petitioner ready to pay the fair rent or any rent, fixed by the third respondent,
the petitioner to show is bonafide has already paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to
the credit of temple on 19.07.2022. The temple authorities received the same
and issued receipt. In view of the same, terming the petitioner as encroacher
and taking steps to remove the petitioner is not proper. Hence, filed this writ
petition.
3. The learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2
submits that the petitioner is a sub-tenant under one Ramakrishnan. The
petitioner is due to the tune of Rs.7,32,000/- to the temple. On the request of
the third respondent, Assistant Commissioner, HR&CE Department gave
report, based on the report, the Joint Commissioner, HR&CE Department
issued notice to the petitioner under Section 78 of the Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments Act, found the petitioner as encroacher, ordered
encroachment to be removed. Despite the petitioner receiving notice has not
opposed the same, which is contrary to the civil suit order obtained in O.S.No.
1186 of 2012. The petitioner is aware about the consequences and further
proceedings as could be seen from the civil Court order. The petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.10332 of 2017
adopting only dilatory tactics to stall the authorities from removal of
encroachment.
4. The learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent submits that
one Ramakrishnan was leased out 2047.50 square feet of the temple land and
the said Ramakrishnan, sublet 680 square feet to the petitioner. The petitioner
is not a tenant under the temple. When the temple authorities attempted to
initiate action, the petitioner filed civil suit in O.S.No.1186 of 2012, arraying
the Ramakrishnan’s wife as first defendant and the temple as second
defendant. The civil Court by judgment, dated 05.01.2015 passed an order,
following due process of law, action can be taken against the petitioner.
Thereafter, proceedings initiated under Section 78 of the Hindu Religious and
Charitable Act. The petitioner not chosen to participate in the proceedings,
knowing well about the proceedings and its consequence. As on date, the
petitioner is due to the temple to the tune of Rs.7,32,000/- out of which the
petitioner paid Rs.1,00,000/- on 19.07.2022. Now, the petitioner is due to the
tune of Rs.6,32,000/-. The petitioner by filing this petition stalled the eviction
proceedings successfully from the year 2017 for the past five years. If the
petitioner is aggrieved on the orders of Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious
and Charitable Endowments Department, he is to approach the first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.10332 of 2017
respondent seeking for relief by act and conduct of the petitioner, it is clear
that the petitioner declared encroacher, he has no intention to pay the rent to
the temple and further stalled the proceedings of eviction.
5. Considering the submission and on perusal of the materials, it is seen
that the petitioner is a sub-tenant under Ramakrishnan. The petitioner is an
encroacher, unauthorised occupant of the temple property. The petitioner
knowing well about his status, filed a suit in O.S.No.1186 of 2012 and
obtained a decree. Thereafter, proceedings under Section 78 of the Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endowments Act initiated, the petitioner knowingly
kept away from the same and after getting orders of eviction, the petitioner
approached this Court. From the date of admission of this writ petition, the
petitioner paid only Rs.1,00,000/- i.e., on 19.07.2022. As on date, the
petitioner is due to the tune of Rs.6,32,000/-. This property is one of the prime
properties on which the income of the temple depends, which is one of the
main source of the temple income. For the past several years, the temple is
deprived of its income and the due got accumulated.
6. In view of the same, this Court finds no reason to entertain this
petition. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. The temple authorities to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.10332 of 2017
proceed as per the order for removal of encroachment, with the aid of police
and revenue officials as contemplated under the Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments Act without further delay. No costs. Consequently,
the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
12.08.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
sn
To
1.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
Madurai.
2.The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
Madurai.
3.The Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Mahadeva Swamy Temple,
Raja Mill Road,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.10332 of 2017
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
sn
W.P(MD).No.10332 of 2017
12.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
